What are you not understanding about seizing the money being the violent part? People don’t exactly take kindly to their money being seized, and at present there is 0 legal mechanism to seize all billionaire’s wealth.

Trying to add that legal mechanism into the system is what you will see extreme resistance to including state sponsored violence.

It’s like you are hand waiving the most difficult part

All of the groups mentioned in your quote from the article are opposing AOC because of her stance on Palestine not being strong enough. It has nothing to do with her “not being maoist enough”.

A ceasefire in Gaza is extremely popular among the electorate, so this stance is pretty solid according to your “flock to progressive ideals” argument. Linking to the wikipedia page on Maoism to make your point here makes absolutely no sense. Especially considering the liberation maoists are stated as being “a much smaller maoist caucus [within the DSA]” right there.

If you want to make an argument that there should be no hesitation in endorsing her despite her support for the iron dome and support for Biden/Harris with them “working tirelessly” behind the scenes on a ceasefire, be my guest.

This is kind of an interesting thought experiment around laws in general. If you made guns illegal tomorrow you would certainly increase guns crimes because anyone who doesn’t give up their guns is now committing a crime. Similarly all sales of guns would now be illegal and the demand for illegal guns would go way up resulting in more black market trade.

But the framing of the question leads to that conclusion. If what you are actually after is something more akin to “if legalizing drugs decreases violent crime then shouldn’t legalizing guns also decrease violent crime?” This is more interesting in my opinion.

Now let’s assume for a second that legalizing drugs does decrease violent crime (I do believe there I’d research that supports this). What crime is reduced? It is likely that crime around the drug trade itself is what is mostly reduced: you do not have as much cartel, gang, mob, and other organized crime entities around who are committing much of the violent crime. Drug users themselves are probably committing less of the crime than the actual distribution as using drugs is often times not an inherently violent act.

For guns the gun itself is a tool of violence. You cannot use a gun without committing a violent act. Now not all violent acts are violent crime, as target practice is not exactly illegal, but it is still violent. If you make manufacturing of guns illegal less will be manufactured which means less will be in existence therefore there is inherently less access to tools of violence. I’m sure the drug smuggling trade would introduce more violence as it would increase drastically. However the increase there may be smaller than the decrease of just having less guns in the world.

I guess the key difference is that guns are a tool of violence much more frequently than the use of an illicit substance is most likely.

I’m curious why you think “you own this game from our store front in perpetuity” is required to rival the ownership of physical media. If I buy a game from Walmart am I allowed to go back there when my disc was damaged and get a new one? Of course not.

GOG allows you to download and backup the installers of the games themselves, if you back these up well you can use those installers in perpetuity to get your game back on any machine in the future.

The point of this is not to be a direct undoing of Sony’s decision. This about preservation, one of GOG’s big missions. The games listed as having this in the article are old games who already had physical media, and as part of the preservation effort they are trying to preserve the context of the physical media which is a very significant aspect of the game.

Stocks cannot be negative. I get the hate surrounding AI companies, but the resistance to this idea makes no sense to me.

In my opinion the number should be closer to 50% instead of 5% - but in both cases if AI companies are the biggest bubble in the world and go bankrupt then the government is left with a $0 value stock they didn’t give any money for…

If ai companies don’t go bankrupt then any returns they do generate go to the government which can be used to provide public services and offset the average Americans tax bill, thus passing any potential gains from ai to the people who generated the training data for them in the first place.